Plot: Humbert Humbert forces a confrontation with a man, whose name he has just recently learned, in this man's home. The events that led to this standoff began four years earlier. Middle aged Humbert, a European, arrives in the United States where he has secured at job at Beardsley College in Beardsley,…Runtime: 153 minRelease Date: 21 Jun 1962

Someone commented that if you want to acquaint yourself with Nabokov's `Lolita' without actually reading it, the best you can do is to see Adrian Lyne's version. This is surely true. And, I might add, if you want to acquaint yourself with Nabokov's `Lolita' without actually reading it - to hell with you. You don't stand a chance anyway. Humbert's narration cannot possibly make it to the screen in one piece. Kubrick, at least, made no attempt. He even invents his own material, which Lyne is afraid or unwilling to do.Something about Lyne's authenticity is even <more>

shocking. He opens the story in 1947, which is when the story in fact opens - yet everything looks jarringly old-fashioned, whereas Kubrick's indeterminate 1950s setting looks right. The bulk of the story might as well take place in the 1950s as any other time. The crucial point is that the story cannot begin any EARLIER than 1947 - we need a post-war America with motels dotting the landscape. Humbert has little contact with contemporary culture; he only encounters the snippets of music and film that obsess Lolita, and he finds them unendurably vulgar. Kubrick captures this very well. There's this boppy little pop tune we never hear the end of - although most of the time we only hear it subliminally - for the first half of the movie, and it sounds like exactly the kind of tune that drove Humbert up the wall.Kubrick's cast is a strong one. It's crowned by Peter Sellers as Quilty - and before you complain that we see too much of him, ask yourself what scene featuring Quilty could you possibly want to be removed? Admittedly, since this is 1962, we have a Lolita who is merely sixteen - but maybe this isn't just because it's 1962. After all, the book does two things at once. It makes us understand perfectly why Humbert is attracted to Lolita - we see her through his eyes - while constantly reminding us that Lolita is not someone that we would be attracted to, ourselves. Both are worthy goals, but when it comes time to film the book, the director must make a choice between them. Kubrick picked a genuinely attractive, but still obviously young, Sue Lyon. I can't fault this choice. As for Humbert - well, here Kubrick was actually MORE daring than Lyne was. Humbert Humbert is a sympathetic character who is also calculating, manipulative and - now and then - shockingly brutal. James Mason allows Humbert to be all of these things. This doesn't prevent him from being sympathetic. The story takes care of that.It comes down to this. What, exactly, does Humbert do that's so wrong? Is it that he has sex with a minor? Considered in itself this is the least of his crimes. What's really wrong is the way he attempts to be Lolita's lover and guardian simultaneously, and, of course, he makes a hash of both jobs. THAT is what's essential to the story of Lolita, and that's what Kubrick transfers to the screen at least as well as Lyne.Having said that I must add that both versions are very good. They're also different enough to scarcely even be competitors. See them one after the other, if you like.

A riveting transposition from page to screen. The accomplices are two giants in both fields. Nabokov adapts his own infamous novel for the screen and Kubrick, no less, translates it into images in a way that makes it unique, unforgettable and transcendental without ever putting himself in front of the camera. A Kubrick film can't be recognized by its style. Kubrick never made two films alike but there is something that, unquestionable, makes them stand out. In "Lolita"'s case the mere idea of touching the controversial novel with its taboo subject at its very core seem like <more>

a provocation from the word go. Pornography for the thinking man in which the only explicit act is the intention written in the character's eyes. Nothing is excessive and nothing is pulled back. James Mason - villain or victim - is monumental, mo-nu-men-tal! The unspeakable truth never leaves his brow. He is the most civilized man trapped in the lowest echelon of his own psyche. So aware, that it is painful to watch. Shelley Winters goes for it, taking her Mrs Hayes for all its worth and dives into the void of a desperate housewife, craving for sex. It is one of the most entertaining, shattering human spectacles, I've ever seen. But unlike Mason, she's not aware of it. There is a horrible innocence attached to her sickness. Peter Sellers's character from hell, the torturer comes in three riveting characterizations and Sue Lyon's temptress, the child, is the devil incarnate in a performance that defies description. None of them were nominated for Oscars and the film was condemned by every moral group in America and beyond. As film experiences go, this is one of the most provocative, enthralling, disgusting, entertaining and satisfying I've ever been through. Yep, I really mean that.

This film remains my all-time favorite. It's a delicious, adult meditation on youth, obsession and sex. While not entirely faithful to the novel, it captures the book's spirit and is nonetheless a masterpiece on its own terms. To fully appreciate what Kubrick has done, compare this version to Adrian Lyne's anemic remake. Kubrick chose his cast wisely for the most part. James Mason conveys both the tormented inner soul and the outwardly polite gentleman with such charm that you simply can't despise him for his treachery. Shelley Winters was never better as the shrill, <more>

man-hungry shrew. Sue Lyon is enormously credible in a complex role - physically attractive, childish at times in her behavior, but quietly calculating and manipulative. The weakest link is Peter Sellers, who Kubrick found amusing enough to let him run on too long. Sellers was a brilliant performer, but just not right for this film. As Quilty, he's fine. When masquerading as others, he's mostly intrusive and tends to alter the tone of what's going on. The need to tread carefully around the censors in 1962 actually works in the film's favor. There's a sophisticated subtlety that counterbalances the lurid subject matter. In fact, I even prefer the edited-for-television version of the scene in which Humbert and Lolita first have sex. Here she merely whispers in his ear before a suggestive fade-out. In the complete version of the film, the scene continues with them discussing a silly game played at summer camp. The less said, the better."Lolita" has aged remarkably well. Its topic is relevant today, and the careful craftsmanship that went into this production holds up beautifully. I think it's Kubrick's best film - they tended to get more self-indulgent as time went on. This one's a gem. Not to be overlooked are the aptly provocative title sequence and Nelson Riddle's luscious piano score.

The excellent novel turned into a screenplay by Vladimir Nabokov himself is one of the best movies Kubrick did. Due to censorship some things were let out, the better for it I say. Sue Lyon as Lo leaves nothing to be desired, her confidence and rebellion is convincing. James Mason is perfect as Humbert Humbert, his way of calculating, concealing his intentions and the way he tries to control Lo's life struggles its best with the sympathies you get for his lonely soul.And Peter Sellers provides the comedic element as well as suspense. When confronting Humbert at the hotel it was almost as <more>

tense as when Rugosjin confronted Raskolnikov in 'Crime and Punishment'.Kubrick shows his mastering of storytelling here. We don't need background on Humbert as we see his intentions in his actions. And what a way to start the movie!

Inspired by the eponymous novel Vladimir Nabokov, 1955 , this film admirably describes the sulfurous relationship between a middle-aged writer and his nymph Dolores Haze, aka Lolita.By chance, looking for a furnished rental, the professor Humbert Humbert encounters Charlotte Haze and her beloved daughter Dolores. From the very first sight, the professor irrevocably accepts the rental conditions! A triangular relationship settles quickly between 1 an intellectual sensitive to beauty and youth, 2 a desperate widow impressed by this professor, both unable to fight against theirs own obsessive <more>

desires, and 3 a manipulative and nonchalant teen. Consecutively to a fatal accident and because of the inquisitive and invasive look of Clare Quilty, the teacher will progressively and ineluctably descend in the depths of the abyss.James Mason is awesome and monumental. He is also excellently seconded by Sue Lyon, Peter Sellers and Shelley Winters. And Stanley Kubrick is definitely a regular of successful and even improved literary adaptations, with Shining 1980 , 2001, A space odyssey 1968 , Barry Lyndon 1975 , A clockwork orange 1971 , The Killing 1956 , ...This movie is truly a masterpiece.

With characters that appear sympathetic at the beginning and turning more and more despicable as the film goes on and showing the unstable mental condition of the main character without throwing it at your face, Lolita manages to keep you uneasy throughout the film. Kubrick's attempt in dark comedy is highly successful here which he will perfect in a much more comedic Dr Strangelove. Lolita could have been a much more complexly woven tale if not for the censorship of the time. From what I've heard the original novel is much better and a lot are omitted here which makes this looks like <more>

more sided with the character of Humbert but the way I see it Kubrick have made the audience uneasy and to an extent made them despise themselves for sympathising with these characters by the end of the film. He never wants everything to be too black and white which is what I believe he tried to implement here as well.

Classic version of "Lolita", Sue Lyon may have been playing herself.(by TxMike)

I was a senior in high school in 1962 when Kubrick's "Lolita" was in theaters. I did not see it back then. Now, having lived for an additional 4 decades, I can appreciate it more anyway. The genius in Kubrick's direction is to let us, the audience, see clearly what is going on, while the players cannot. Sue Lyon played the coy Lolita so well, but when you read her biography and see that she had a series of short, failed marriages after this film was made, you have to wonder if her performance was so good because she was playing a character not far from herself. But the real <more>

star is Peter Sellers, playing Clare Quilty. Overall a fine movie depicting how unreasonable and blind obsession can cloud the thinking of otherwise reasonable and educated people. Here it was a man, but we certainly have not cornered that fault.After viewing this movie, I read Nabakov's book. It is much more revealing no surprise there as to how Humbert made an elaborate justification in his mind that is was OK for a man in his late 30s to have a sexual relationship with a girl in the 10 to 14 year old range, finally having one with Lo when she was 12. It of course is much more explicit in describing their passion and activities. Now I too am a bit surprised that the book was ever made into a movie.

How wrong "The_Wood" is about this film... The previous commentator's jibe of "dull performances" so completely misses the mark I do not balk at laughter! To think he was watching the same film as I, is an odd thought, or more pointedly, the same magnificent performance from Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty. While I admit the film isn't entirely successful, I would say it is at least reasonable in most regards. Well shot and composed by Kubrick, I don't see how anyone could doubt its mounting. The opening scene, with Sellers riffing off Mason extraordinarily, is <more>

one of the greatest, oddest openings to a film ever. All sorts of proto-Pinteresque psychological mind games are deployed in this oddest of "confrontation" scenes. Maybe, one might say, the film doesn't generally match this inspired quality in the main body of the picture. The scenes which unquestionably do invariably involve Sellers. His portrayal and embellishment of Nabokov's more minor player, Quilty, is an outstanding success; for all the magnetic subtlety of "Being There" and high-octane comic mastery of "Dr Strangelove" I feel this performance to be the most magnetic, unnerving and ingenious of Sellers' career, such as I have seen it. The scenes between Sellers and Mason, the incalculably more sedate, classical actor, are like eras and mindsets shifting, uncomfortably and compellingly. Sellers plays Quilty as an amoral jokester, a daunting genius alter-ego of Humbert, uninhibited and unrestrained in his game-playing. I ought to make mention of the party scene early on, with Quilty dancing diffidently and cynically with some dame or other. Moments such as this scene in the film are pure acting subtlety demonstrated by Sellers, and he practically maintains the compelling interest embodied by this character throughout. Wonderful. Who could forget, or indeed ignore as the two previous reviewers have, the sublimely tense and comic scene at the hotel with Sellers' and Quilty's "policeman" probing Humbert in a simultaneously precise and absurd manner. Where some critics have said Sellers' Quilty is over-used, I would say quite the opposite; he could have been used even more, although the irregularity and unpredictability of his appearances is tangibly effective.Mason is dependable as Humbert, and this mere "dependability" proves perhaps insufficient in a film dominated by one of the finest performances. The character's passions and motivations are quelled rather than exacerbated by Mason's mannered English gentleman playing of the part. However, his bearing and style of acting prove an irresistible counterpoint to Sellers. Kubrick evidently realized, on set, Sellers' genius for both precise comedic timing and subtle character acting, and rightly indulged these attributes. Other players in Nabokov/Kubrick/Sellers' comedic human pyschodrama are a mixture. Shelley Winters, an often unremarkable actress, portrays a hilariously unlovely lady very well. A victim, as in the majestic "The Night of the Hunter", Winters proves an elusively cursory actress. The scene where Mason is in the bath, and she subsequently dies, without the "aid" of Humbert is a master class in comedic acting from Mason and Winters. Sue Lyon, importantly, is maybe not quite the Lolita that is required. She's certainly alluring, but never quite the right mix of seductive innocence and dispensed nonchalance. She plays the part with maybe an over-emphasis on desultory petulance. Full marks, though, to Kubrick for the influential shots when Humbert sees her for the first time; brilliantly done. It is however, in the final analysis, a mistake, or cop-out, of casting to have Sue Lyon, a girl of around sixteen, rather than someone of the age Nabokov specifies in the novel. It misses, or rather skirts around, the point of "Lolita" somewhat.For all the film's faults, it's an entertaining, provocative more in the sense of Humbert's guilt than in his desires drama with an irreverent, thoughtful edge provided by the frighteningly good Sellers. As a film it is far from "obsolete", as user Hugh comments, it is an essential, if flawed adaptation of a literary classic. And I'm not being in the least bit "sentimental" in saying that.Rating:- ****/*****

It could never be the book and I recently saw the late 90's version which wasn't bad closer to the book , but not the cast. James Mason as Humbert was tortured, believable in a weird situation and tragic. Shelley Winters was too-on the mark, Sue Lyon looked right, and throw in the psychotic great actor Peter Sellers as Quilty, regenerating every scene he was in. I'm not sure about the importance of Kubrick, but it's very high, and I like his early stuff probably because of my age; early 50's .Black and white suited this censored tale that doesn't have the <more>

reputation it deserves. An 8 out of 10. Best performance Peter Sellers. Most people haven't even seen this and fewer have read the book, so what's the difference? Beats me! Good film.